DC Elite Conventional Wisdom vs. Reality

One of the most frustrating things involving politics has to be how ideas and policies that by all evidence and common sense is wrong or radical, is trumpeted as "mainstream" and "acceptable" by media elites, who consider themselves, of course, also "moderates."

Yet how many times are we confronted supposed "moderation" that is completely at odds with what the majority of the American people want? I mean...shouldn't "moderate" and "mainstream" mean that majorities of the American people believe the same?

In the past this "moderation" was found in many debates:

The Social Security debate: Pundits and Commentators insisted that the Democrats must be "moderate," must be "bipartisan," and must listen to the American people and compromise with Republicans over Social Security. This "compromise of course would of completely destroyed the system and the defeated the purpose of Social Security but...that didn't matter.

Of course, most people sided with Democrats and their concepts but pesky facts like that are often overlooked or igored.

Iraq Withdrawal: Pundits have warned Democrats for a while not to push withdrawal too much. We were warned not to push to hard before the 2006 midterms or else the nation would punish Democrats...even though polling told the story that the Democratic message of withdrawing from Iraq was popular.
-----

These Beltway "Serious" People are have lived life so long in their Washington, or New York bubble that they lose touch with Americans at large. They think they are smart, educated and and so knowledgable of the world that they are just right about everything. They come to see their own opinions as what constitutes "mainstream" and "acceptable" and label anything that resides outside their limited scope as "radical," "naive," and "unserious."

It never occurs to them that they could be wrong, or that their ideas, or the ideas they accept as legitimate, are the ones who are "radical" and far out of the mainstream.

Barrack Obama's YouTube Debate "Gaffe"

This bring me to the recent CNN/YouTube debate in which the question posed was: Would you have talks with nations now considered Americas enemies in his first year? (paraphrasing)

[This I assumes means nations like Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and others]

Barrack Obama answered that he would talk to these countries without precondition because he does not subscribe to the view that talks are rewards for bad behaviour, but that they are neccesary tools to get "bad" nations to act in a manner that is "not so bad."

Hillary Clinton called this view "naive" and that she would not talk to these nations without some sort of preconditions before talks began.

These different responses highlight a vast difference between the two candidate as it refers to their different foreign policy philosophies.

The media elite, and Beltway conventional wisdom worshipers almost universally called this a "gaffe" on the part of Obama and agreed with Clinton that this only highlighted to the American people how naive and inexperienced Obama was in foreign affairs.

But this example only highlights how out of touch with "mainstream" these people actually are.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon points to us to just one of these Conventional Wisdom -machines poo-pooing Obamas view as "too left":

Chris Mathews Show, July 26, 2007

MATTHEWS: I share your sentiments. But as a journalist, I have to look at the politics of this thing. Your last words?

[Weekly Standard's Stephen] HAYES: I think if [Obama] continues down this course I think he's in serious trouble because it‘s unsustainable.

MATTHEWS: Too far left?

HAYES: Absolutely.

The opinion is crystal clear: Obamas ideas are essentially too radical, too extreme, to outside the mainstream for America.

So, how does the American people actually feel about this question?

A recent Rassmussen Report poll tells us that more Americans actually side with Obama on this question that Clinton:

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

That question came up during last Monday's Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama.

So, polls tell us that, of the Americans who have an opinion, a majority side with Barrack Obama and his view. And importantly for the Democratic primary, most Democrats agree with Obama.

Yet, the conventional wisdom among the Washington opinion makers is that Obama made a "gaffe." That this highlighted a lack of knowledge of foreign policy, and that this was "too left."

Obamas views are too radical yet no word on the trully radical and horrendous policies and ideas promulgated by people who get on TV all the time. These ideas that follow are acceptable...

From the same Chris Matthews show we get crazy ass (but "serious") Stephen Hayes:

MATTHEWS: on Cheney, because Cheney is the kind of guy who represents to me the hard case. He‘s not going to go negotiate with anybody. Is it fair to say that Cheney would take the position, you don‘t deal with Ahmadinejad, for whatever reason, you don‘t deal with Castro, you don‘t deal with Kim Jong il or any of these guys. You stiff them. Is that the Cheney view?

HAYES: To play off of what Sally said, it actually is for the opposite point. You don‘t play with them precisely because it gives them respect. It gives them stature on the world stage that they don‘t deserve. Ahmadinejad, as Howard said several times—he‘s a holocaust denier.

That‘s crazy talk.—ridiculous, insane position.

MATTHEWS: Does that mean never talk to them?

HAYES: Yes, absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Then what do we do? How do we negotiate?

HAYES: We don‘t negotiate somebody who‘s denying the holocaust, with somebody who‘s killing our soldiers.

MATTHEWS: What do you do with them?

HAYES: I think you confront them. I think you confront them in a stronger way.

MATTHEWS: How do you do that? What should we do with Iran?

HAYES: Certainly we should be having units, at the very least, taking out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who are killing our soldiers.

MATTHEWS: So we should cross the border?

HAYES: I think if we need to cross the border, we should cross the border? Yes.

MATTHEWS: You think we should be acting aggressively towards Iran?

HAYES: Yes.

The "acceptable" position, the position of many neconservatives who always get invited to national TV news shows is that we should not negotiate with out enemies because it would reward bad behavior. And Chris asks the million dollar question: "If we don't talk, what then?"

War of course you dumbass!! People who propose diplomacy are radical, and "too left," but idiots who argue for another war (and believe me the quickest way to get there is to listen to Stephen Hayes), with a nation several orders tougher and bigger than Iraq, while we are still bogged down in the first mistake those same neconservatives like Hayes got us into (Iraq).

This is not radicalism? Is this not crazy and insane positions?

But if you pay enough attention to the news you learn quick that proposing violence and wars as a solution to any problem will never get you labeled "radical." A hawk is just assumed to always be serious and smart. While those who see it different are always "radial" or outside the mainstream.

The only thing this incident really highlights is how out of touch or national "talking heads" are.


----

I happen to agree with Obama. It's much saner and more pragmatic foreign policy outlook, that is more likely to achieve progress. Clintons view is - sadly - not that far different from the current Bush stance on diplomatic talks with "enemies." They both wish for enemy nations to achieve several preconditions prior to engaging in talks.

This is silly in most cases because, especially when it comes to Bush, the preconditions are often demands that negotiations themselves are supposed to accomplish.

Like the precondition for North Korea to abandon its nuclear program prior to talks. Are you stupid!: You want North Korea to concede everything prior to talks. Needless to say they haven't been too successful until they finally gave up on those ridiculous preconditions.

This difference in foreign policy outlook is not unimportant:

In fact I'm quite confident in saying that if it came down to a choice between Obama and Clinton, I would gladly choose Obama just on the basis of this issue. As it stands I'm not committed to any one candidate yet, but Clinton lost a lot of my respect during that debate.

-------------

Roundup

Larissa Alexandrovna of Raw Story does some original reporting and based on interviews with some former and and current intelligence officials, reports that the recent National Intelligence Estimate could be flawed.

Flaws and politicization of the NIE

Current and former intelligence officials say the Bush Administration's National Intelligence Estimate regarding terrorist threats to the United States does not provide evidence to support its assertions and may have inflated the domestic threat posed by the Lebanese political and military group Hezbollah, perhaps because it receives financial support from Iran.

According to the report, Hezbollah – a Shi'a Muslim group with ties to Iran that has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United States – may target the US domestically if the US poses a serious threat to Iran. But sources say the allegations about Hezbollah were simply "thrown in."

Speaking under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, several intelligence officers asserted that the report was sloppy and lacked supporting evidence. "The NIE seems… fiddled [with]," regarding Hezbollah, one high-ranking CIA official said. "Whether it is or isn't is not really the point. The point is that nobody is ready to believe it." (snip)

An individual close to the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research told RAW STORY the document's assertions are not backed up by empirical or external evidence even in the classified version. In addition, this official explained, the information lacks context and does not prioritize threats.

Released last week, the NIE is a consensus view from all sixteen intelligence agencies and departments, compiled by the National Intelligence Council and signed off on by the agencies involved as well as by the Director for National Intelligence. The document represents the "official" intelligence community view on any issue related to national security.

Intelligence officials would not confirm whether the classified version contained dissenting views. However, several expressed concern that parts of the report may have been politicized.

A possibly politicized document coming from the Bush Administration...say it ain't so.

--------

Americans trust Democrats over Republicans on just about every issue -

When it comes to National Security, Democrats are now trusted more by 42% of likely voters, Republicans by 40%. This means that Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters' trust of the two major parties.

In late June Democrats had the edge on nine of ten issues. At that time, the GOP had a single point advantage of the National Security issue. (snip)

The Democrats have also gained a little ground this month when it comes to the War in Iraq. Harry Reid’s party moved from a ten-point advantage in late June to a twelve-point lead of 47% to 35% in the new survey.

On another hot-button issue, Immigration, Democrats are now trusted more by 40%, versus 30% who trust Republicans more. This ten-point disparity is the second-largest we've seen all year. But another 29% don't find either party trustworthy.

Only Government Ethics and Corruption inspires higher levels of bipartisan distaste. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t notice any difference between the parties on the ethics front--among unaffiliated voters, that percentage mushrooms to 58%. Overall, Democrats are now favored by 38%, Republicans by 25%.

The GOP also lost ground on the Economy this month with Democrats now trusted more 47% to 38%. In June,the Democrats’ advantage was 47% to 40%.

Forty-three percent (43%) now trust Democrats more on Taxes, 41% trust Republicans more.

On domestic issues, Democrats enjoy the biggest advantage on Health Care and Social Security. Fifty percent (50%) trust Democrats more on Health Care, 33% trust Republicans more. On Social Security, 47% trust Democrats more while 34% prefer the GOP.

On Education, Democrats now have a four point advantage; on Abortion, a five-point advantage.

Good news, but I'm simply baffled why the American people throw in the Democrats as just as corrupt as Republicans. Dozens of Republicans have been investigated, arrested, charged with various corrupt practices yet Democrats are implicated too? My guess is that the high profile cases of Democratic corruption (such as William Jefferson) leave Americans with the false impression that corruption is equally a Democrat and Republican past-time. Or perhaps its just general disgust and cynicism when it comes to Washington in general. A "pox on both their houses" mentality...who knows.

---------

Pentagon makes contingency plans for a Iraq pullout - SecDef Gates responds to Senator Clinton's queries and confirms that there is in fact contingency planning being done for withdrawal scenarios. Honestly, I'm a little relieved even though I doubt they plan on using them anytime soon. At least they are not making the mistake done prior to the Iraq invasion where they totally discounted how difficult the invasion would be and so did not plan before-hand for anything but being "greeted with flowers and candy."

Needless to say, they were seriously caught with their pants down when Iraq didn't turn out to be such a cakewalk...

---------

That's all for today. I've been pretty lazy about blogging past few days...stuff just pops up. Little blogging tomorrow 'cuz I have to work so perhaps Tuesday.

Good night.